467 F.

2d 973

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.
Joseph CALABRO et al., Appellants.
Nos. 835, 839-841, 846-849,
Dockets 72-1203, 72-1211-17.

United States Court of Appeals,

Second Circuit.
Argued June 30, 1972.
Decided Sept. 21, 1972.

Joseph Aronstein, New York City, for appellant Calabro.

Jack Kaplan, New York City (John D. LaSalle, James E. Massey, Mark
K. Sisitsky and Richard A. Toomey, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for
appellant Leonard Conforti.
Donald E. Nawi, New York City, for appellant John Conforti.
William Sonenshine, Brooklyn, N. Y. (Evseroff, Newman & Sonenshine,
Brooklyn, N. Y.), for appellant Anthony Tortorello.
Theodore Krieger, New York City, for appellants Anthony Picciano,
Richard Pasqua, John Roche and Marc Moskowitz.
Marshall Tamor Golding, Atty., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C.,
Robert A. Morse, U. S. Atty., E. D. New York, Liam S. Coonan, Sp.
Atty., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MOORE, SMITH and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges.
J. JOSEPH SMITH, Circuit Judge.

The testimony at this lengthy, multidefendant trial revealed the existence of a

large, well-organized, long-term scheme to "pass dirty paper," that is, to forge
and cash stolen obligations of various sorts in and around the New York area.
Each of the eight appellants was convicted on one or more counts of forging

and uttering United States Series E Savings Bonds and United States postal
money orders, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 495 or of conspiring to commit
those offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371, after a trial by jury in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Jacob
Mishler, Chief Judge.)1 Seven of the appellants were sentenced to terms of
imprisonment, ranging in length from a year and a day to ten years; one was
placed on probation.2 Two co-defendants, Charles Graham and Richard
Marabetti, pleaded guilty and testified for the government at trial. A ninth codefendant found guilty, Joseph Chilli, did not appeal. Certain of the defendants
claim that the evidence was insufficient to convict them, and all claim that
numerous errors, some of constitutional magnitude, occurred during the course
of the trial. We find that none of the claims warrants reversal and affirm the
judgment below.
I. THE FACTS
2

The testimony, primarily by Graham and Marabetti, longtime accomplices of

the defendants, and by Martha Lane, Faye Rushford, Marie Matthews, and
Carol Rabinow, women who played a more fleeting role in the organization,
revealed that Leonard Conforti (sometimes referred to herein as "Leonard") and
Steven Insalaco (a co-defendant who pleaded guilty during trial and whose case
was then severed) were managers of a large "business" which forged and
uttered stolen obligations; this indictment covers transactions in postal money
orders and valid executed and blank unexecuted Series E Savings Bonds. The
organization was multi-leveled; at the top were Leonard and Insalaco, who
directed the operation and took a percentage of all proceeds from the cashing of
the bonds and money orders. Most of the paper was purchased outright or on
consignment from Joseph Calabro, though some drifted in from other sources.
Calabro was referred to by Leonard and Insalaco as "the boss," who got "a cut
of all the action." The middle level in the organization was comprised of
"managers," who recruited the men or women who did the actual passing,
supervised their activity, and were responsible for their profits. Marabetti was
active at this level, operating mainly in New Jersey; Graham, Richard Pasqua
and John Roche worked in New York. John Conforti had a position somewhere
between this level and the higher one; though he entered the conspiracy later
than the others, he was being primed for a leadership role in the enterprise.

The "movers" or "workers," who did the actual cashing of the bonds, were
generally young women, although men, such as Marc Moskowitz, were also
employed. Faye Rushford, Martha Lane, Marie Matthews, and Carol Rabinow,
four such "movers" who testified at trial, were sometimes paid a percentage of
the amounts they cashed (10-15%) and sometimes received a stated amount for

a day of cashing activity. The managers then took their share of the proceeds
(from 10 to 35% depending on the person involved and the circumstances of
the transaction) and passed the remainder on to Leonard and Insalaco. When
the bonds were received on consignment, the supplier would be paid a
percentage of the cash realized; Calabro took 17% on those obligations he
supplied. To facilitate the passing of the obligations, Leonard and Insalaco
purchased and supplied the managers with bogus identification papers, such as
driver's licenses, draft cards, and Social Security cards; the major source of
such papers was Tortorello, though Picciano also supplied some bogus
identification.
4

The conspiracy was alleged to have run from July 1, 1966 to the filing of the
indictment on March 11, 1970. Most of the incidents testified to occurred
during 1967 and 1968; there was, however, proof of three episodes of cashing
Savings Bonds during the summer of 1966. Michael Conforti, another brother
of Leonard and John, Steven Insalaco, and Carol Rabinow were involved in
those incidents. The bonds were cashed in banks in New York City; Rabinow,
who did the actual cashing, received 10% of the proceeds and passed the rest to
Conforti or Insalaco. Rabinow was arrested in late summer of 1966 and her
involvement with the group ended at that point.

The next major series of transactions testified to occurred a year later, in the fall
of 1967. In October of that year, Leonard Conforti learned of the possibility of
purchasing stolen postal money orders; he and Insalaco approached Marabetti
with an offer to work together cashing the orders. Leonard bought the
obligations, which had been stolen from a Groveville, New Jersey post office,
and the stamping machine necessary to validate them, and the three
commenced forging and cashing them. Martha Lane, the woman who worked
for Marabetti and actually cashed the forged orders, testified that the cashing
forays began at the Black Eagle Social Club, on 31st Street in Brooklyn, the
central location for the group's activities at this time. She would depart from
there, generally with Marabetti, and often with Pasqua or Roche too, and drive
to a series of retail stores, at each of which she would buy $20-$30 of
merchandise and pay with a forged $100 money order. She was given false
identification by Leonard Conforti before she left the club and returned it to
him after each trip. On returning to the Black Eagle, she gave the proceeds of
the cashing to Leonard, Insalaco or Marabetti; when the merchandise purchased
was liquor, it was generally used in the club. The money order activities were
brought to an abrupt halt when Lane was arrested in Bergenfield, New Jersey
on December 10, 1967.

Lane was immediately released on bail and testified that she was present at a

conversation the day after her arrest in which Leonard and Insalaco discussed
with Marabetti the possibility of venturing into United States Series E Savings
Bonds instead of continuing with money orders. Marabetti and a partner of his,
John Collerone, worked with Leonard, Insalaco and Pasqua during most of
1968, cashing such bonds at banks. Martha Lane, who cashed several thousand
dollars worth of these bonds with Marabetti through May of 1968, testified to
numerous cashing expeditions onto Long Island and in the areas surrounding
New York City. During this period, she saw Calabro, described to her by Roche
as "an associate of Leo and Steve's," at the Black Eagle on one occasion.
7

At the same time, Graham, who had been recruited in January of 1968, was
building an organization of his own which also moved forged bonds dispensed
by Leonard. The bonds cashed during this period were valid executed bonds
stolen from the true owners and purchased from Calabro, and the "movers"
forged the endorsements of the true owners when they cashed the bonds.
Graham continued to work with Leonard and Insalaco during the summer of
1968, and at that time, John Conforti was first linked with the cashing
activities. In the early fall, John allowed Leonard and others to use his house for
typing blank bonds and apparently did some typing himself. Faye Rushford, a
waitress who had come to New York in early fall on Leonard's invitation to
work in Nero's Nook, a bar he operated which many of the appellants
frequented, testified that John told her, a week after her arrival at the start of
October, that "We steal for a living. We get bonds."

During October Leonard reportedly told Graham to teach John the business,
and John recruited Rushford to work with Graham and himself. In October,
Rushford cashed bonds with Graham several times, and in December, John and
Graham completed the cashing of a large number of blank bonds stolen from a
post office in California. Graham testified that the identification used to
facilitate the cashing of several series of the bonds moved in late 1968 and
listed in the indictment was supplied by Tortorello. In January of 1969, John
and Graham took several trips-to Pennsylvania to collect money from
Moskowitz, who had been cashing bonds there, and to Boston to investigate the
possibility of establishing operations there. During that same month, Leonard
told Graham to make John his partner; they were to split the profits equally.

The last set of ventures probed at trial occurred during the fall of 1969. Marie
Matthews met Pasqua and Leonard at this time and worked with them on
several occasions cashing bonds in banks on the west side of Manhattan; she
testified that she earned about $3,000, which was 15% of the total proceeds of
the work, in her 20 to 30 trips with Leonard and Pasqua. Matthews was arrested
on December 4, 1969.

10

Finally, Marabetti testified that when he was released from jail in January of
1970, having completed a term on a related charge, he met with Leonard who
told him that if he wanted to do any more work in the "bond business," he
should see John, who was taking it over for Leonard.

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

11

Three appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support their

convictions. Preliminarily, Calabro and John Conforti make a broad attack on
the conformity of the evidence with the offenses charged in the indictment.
John contends that a Series E bond is not embraced within the wording of 18
U.S.C. Sec. 495 and Calabro argues that the forgery of endorsements on
otherwise genuine bonds does not violate that section. Neither contention has
merit. Section 495 prohibits, inter alia, the making, alteration, forgery or
counterfeiting of "any deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt,
contract, or other writing" for the purpose of obtaining money from the United
States and the publishing or uttering of any such writing with intent to defraud
the United States, knowing the false or forged nature of the paper. In Prussian
v. United States, 282 U.S. 675, 51 S.Ct. 223, 75 L.Ed. 610 (1931) the Supreme
Court held, under the predecessor to Sec. 495, that an endorsement is a
"writing" within the purview of that section. And a forged endorsement on an
obligation such as a government savings bond, if made "for the purpose of
obtaining a sum of money from the Treasury of the United States," constitutes a
violation of Sec. 495. Prussian v. United States, supra; United States v. Campo,
414 F.2d 765 (2d Cir. 1969). Each of the forgery counts charged that the
endorsements were forged for the purpose of obtaining money from the United
States and each of the uttering counts charged that the passing was done "with
intent to defraud the United States, knowing the payee's name to be forged
thereon." Hence the acts alleged and proved fell within the scope of Sec. 495.

12

The conspiracy count, worded somewhat differently, charged a conspiracy to

forge and utter bonds and money orders, known to have been forged, with
intent to defraud the United States. Read literally, this does not charge a
conspiracy to forge endorsements. See Danielson v. United States, 321 F.2d
441, 444 (9th Cir. 1963). However, the evidence showed a conspiracy to forge
bonds themselves as well as to forge endorsements on valid bonds. Some of the
bonds supplied by Calabro and cashed by the group were blank and had to be
completed and stamped to have even counterfeit validity. Despite the
genuineness of the blanks from which the defendants worked, this process is a
forgery of the bonds in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 471 which prohibits forging
of an "obligation or other security of the United States," and their uttering
constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 472. See United States v. Craft, 407

F.2d 1065 (6th Cir. 1969). Thus, a conspiracy to violate sections 471 and 472
was charged, even if we take a possibly overtechnical view and find that one
under Sec. 495 was not, and the evidence sustained the charges. The fact that
the wrong section of the statute was cited does not invalidate either the charge
or the convictions if, as here, no prejudice is shown to derive from the
miscitation. United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219, 229, 61 S.Ct. 463, 85
L.Ed. 788 (1941); United States v. Galgano, 281 F.2d 908, 910-911 (2d Cir.
1960), cert. denied sub nom. Carminati v. United States, 366 U.S. 960, 81 S.Ct.
1916, 6 L.Ed.2d 1253 (1961); United States v. McKnight, 253 F.2d 817, 820
(2d Cir. 1958); Rule 7(c) Fed.R.Crim.P.3
13

Calabro, who was convicted only on the conspiracy count, claims that though
he may have been guilty of aiding the forging and uttering by selling bonds to
Leonard and Graham, he did not conspire with the defendants to accomplish
their aims. However, it is clear that his participation went deeper than the
supplying of contraband in a few isolated transactions with no concern for the
remainder of the operation. See United States v. Peoni, 100 F.2d 401 (2d Cir.
1938). He was the supplier of most of the bonds the group cashed, and though
he was paid for some irrespective of whether they were cashed, he often
received a percentage of the proceeds. The forging and uttering were thus a
prerequisite to his realization of profit. Both Marabetti and Graham, who
personally received packages of bonds from Calabro, were told by Leonard that
Calabro was his boss, and Calabro himself told Faye Rushford that Leonard
and Insalaco "worked for him." There was ample evidence that Calabro was a
key member of the ongoing conspiracy.

14

John Conforti claims that he was a "fringe" defendant who entered the
conspiracy late and was only tangentially involved in the transactions that
occurred after he began to participate. The evidence, as noted above, belies this
contention. In the early fall of 1968 he recruited Faye Rushford, telling her that
the group cashed stolen bonds for a living, and he allowed his house to be used
for the forging enterprise. In the late fall of 1968 and early winter of 1969, a
period of particularly heavy cashing activity, John became Graham's partner
and worked actively with the group. Thus, although John entered the
conspiracy later than the others, the evidence was sufficient to sustain his
conviction on the conspiracy count. His convictions on the substantive counts
are also clearly sustainable. He assisted in the completion of the blank bonds
the subject of counts 22 through 27 and received a share of the proceeds from
their cashing; he aided and abetted the forging and uttering of the bonds listed
in counts 14 and 15 by recruiting the woman who cashed them. On the other
six counts on which he was convicted, the jury could have found him an aider
and abettor because he was a member of the conspiracy at the time when the

named bonds were passed. Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct.
1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946).
15

Tortorello also attacks the sufficiency of the evidence implicating him; he

claims that even if the jury credited a statement by Graham that he was the
source of twenty or more sets of false identification used to facilitate the
passing of the bonds, there was no evidence that he knew when he supplied the
papers that they would be used in bondcashing activity. Under United States v.
Gallishaw, 428 F.2d 760 (2d Cir. 1970), the government had to show at a
minimum, to sustain the conviction of Tortorello as an aider and abettor of the
forging, that he knew that the identification he supplied the group was to be
used in a transaction involving forged bonds. Though details of the actual
cashing would not have to be known to him, a generalized suspicion of illegal
use of the identification would not suffice.

16

The court properly instructed the jury on this point, noting that on each
substantive count the jury must find that "the act of participation was done by
the particular individual knowing it was for the purpose of furthering that
particular venture set forth in the count" and that the requisite intent "must
include the knowledge that it was for the purpose of forging or cashing" the
bonds or money orders. Existence of this knowledge can be "inferred from the
circumstances," United States v. Gallishaw, supra, 428 F.2d at 763, and though
the evidence on this point was not abundant, it was sufficient to allow the jury
to conclude that Tortorello knew that cashing of illegal obligations was being
accomplished with the false papers he sold the defendants. Leonard introduced
Tortorello to Marabetti as "the Tortie that gives us the identification."
Whenever the enterprise ran short of identification, Leonard would tell Roche
to notify Tortorello and pick up more from him; the latter brought a batch of
driver's licenses, Social Security cards and draft cards to Nero's Nook one night
in July, 1968. At the time of one sale of identification directly to Marabetti
Tortorello indicated that he was familiar with Calabro and knew that he had
authorized the transaction. These circumstances could provide the basis for an
inference that Tortorello was well acquainted with the appellants' activities and
knew that their venture involved the cashing of forged obligations. See United
States v. Howell, 447 F.2d 1114 (2d Cir. 1971).

III. MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES

17

John and Calabro complain that the evidence showed multiple discrete
conspiracies rather than the one charged in the indictment, and John claims that
the court ought to have severed his trial from that of those involved in different
agreements. The evidence, however, quite clearly established one conspiracy,

extending over a three-year period, to forge and pass savings bonds, money
orders, and obligations of other sorts, including municipal bonds, through an
on-going network. The method of operation, the participating individuals at the
middle and upper levels, and the goals of the parties to the continuing
agreement remained steady throughout. Leonard and Insalaco operated the
business; Roche, Pasqua, Marabetti and Graham were middle level
"employees" through the money order and bond phases of the group's activities.
John occupied a position somewhere between the two groups, and Calabro was
the supplier; though John became a member after the money order phase had
terminated, and though Calabro did not supply the money orders, neither John's
entry nor Calabro's resumption of supply activities after the money order hiatus
marked a new agreement by the group or a change in method of operation.
Though the "movers" who did the actual cashing came and went over the years,
the basic network continued intact throughout the entire period.
18

This group of forgers in fact exhibited the characteristics of the typical "chain"
conspiracy; although all of the defendants may not have known and worked
directly with all the others, there is evidence that each was aware of others in
the line of distribution and of the larger nature of the operation in which he or
she played a part. See Note, Federal Treatment of Multiple Conspiracies, 57
Colum.L.Rev. 387, 390-92 (1957); United States v. Borelli, 336 F.2d 376 (2d
Cir. 1964). This is not a situation similar to that in Kotteakos v. United States,
328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946) in which numerous
individuals, unconnected and unconcerned with one another, were tied solely to
each one's involvement with one Brown. Here, the appellants were members of
a large organization which they had joined with knowledge of its goals and with
an intent to further them. John and Calabro were central members of this
conspiratorial group.

19

Moreover, even if one concluded that two conspiracies were shown, one to
forge postal money orders in the fall of 1967 and one of longer duration turning
on savings bonds, John would not benefit thereby. "[T]he test for reversible
error, if two conspiracies have been established instead of one, is whether the
variance affects substantial rights. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a)." United States v.
Agueci, 310 F.2d 817, 827 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 959, 83 S.Ct.
1013, 10 L.Ed.2d 11 (1963); United States v. Vega, 458 F.2d 1234 (2d Cir.
1972). The requirements for sustaining a verdict in which there has been a
variance have been met when there is no double jeopardy problem and no issue
of unfair surprise deriving from the proof of two conspiracies rather than one
(Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935)), and
when "[t]he several conspiracies, if there had been such, could have been joined
in a single indictment or consolidated for a single trial and the conduct of the

trial was such that the danger resulting from the admission of evidence not
chargeable to any appellant was minimal." United States v. Agueci, supra, 310
F.2d at 827.
20

John claims that he did suffer prejudice from the inclusion of the postal money
order conspiracy in his trial because it provoked testimony about the use of
threats and physical force by Leonard on one of the money order "movers" to
make clear to her that she was not free to cease working for him whenever she
pleased. John also claims that proof on the money order counts distracted the
jury from the counts and testimony in which he was involved. Proof on the
money order counts, which comprised only two of the twenty-six substantive
counts, did not unduly side track the trial, and the fleeting reference to physical
violence in a trial of a month's duration does not warrant a severance. Nor was
John a peripheral defendant, like Shuck in United States v. Kelly, 349 F.2d 720
(2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 947, 86 S.Ct. 1467, 16 L.Ed.2d 544
(1966), whose connection to the overall conspiracy was so tenuous and
different in quality from that of the main defendants that excessive care was
necessary to avoid irreparable prejudice to him deriving merely from presence
on trial with them. The trial court here took pains to explain to the jury the
circumstances under which the evidence could be considered against one or
more of the defendants and to avoid any prejudice to those defendants against
whom certain facts were not admissible. We find no error based on a claim of
the existence or proof of more than one conspiracy under the indictment.

IV. ALLEGED DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

21
22

The two most substantial arguments raised by the appellants arise from the
alleged denial of assistance of counsel to Leonard Conforti and Joseph Calabro.

23

The factual background of Leonard's claim must be sketched in some detail.

Conforti's retained attorney in a related case, James LaRossa, was to represent
him at this trial, but when it became clear that he would be a crucial witness in
a hearing on an alleged promise of immunity to Leonard, he was relieved by the
court and Gerald Rosenthal was appointed to replace him. This substitution
took place some time before trial, and the two had opportunities to talk about
the defense in the interim. On the eve of trial, Rosenthal was appointed to
represent John Conforti and his wife Loretta, named in one count dismissed at
trial.

24

The conflict which led to Rosenthal's cessation of representation of Leonard

grew out of Leonard's refusal to stipulate that the bonds named in certain counts
of the indictment were in fact stolen and the signatures unauthorized. The

government and all the other defendants and attorneys were willing, indeed
anxious to do so, both to save time and to avoid highly prejudicial testimony. At
the end of the first day of testimony by bondholders, Rosenthal announced to
the court that Leonard was dissatisfied and wanted him removed from the case.
Leonard objected, claiming that though they were having some difficulty, it
was Rosenthal and not he who wished to sever the relationship. The court
forbade Rosenthal to withdraw but advised the defendant that if he wished to
dismiss his attorney he could do so and proceed pro se, with Rosenthal present
to answer his questions. Rosenthal finally stated that he would insist on entering
the stipulation were he to continue with Leonard and leave it to the client
whether to accept or dismiss him for that reason. Leonard remained adamant in
his refusal to stipulate, and the court announced that the testimony of
bondholders would continue the next day and that Rosenthal would be present
to represent Leonard.
25

The next morning Rosenthal reiterated that Leonard and now John wished to
dismiss him. Leonard explained that Rosenthal's unwillingness to tell the court
that it had been he who initiated the talk of dismissal, and his refusal to
"properly defend" his client were the reasons for the request. Leonard told the
court that he did not feel adequate to defend himself but that he would prefer
that course to continuing with Rosenthal. The court denied Leonard's request
for a half-day recess in which to obtain new counsel and gave him the choice of
Rosenthal or self-representation. Leonard, followed by John and Loretta, chose
the latter. The court did not discuss the matter further at that time, but told them
they would have every courtroom right an attorney has and "one additional
right, the right to make a fool of yourself by not having a lawyer." The trial
proceeded.

26

Early the next morning Leonard, having contacted another lawyer but failed to
persuade him to take the case on such short notice, requested that the court
appoint new counsel for him. Judge Mishler refused, citing the inevitable delay
that would follow the entry of new assigned counsel into the case. When no
other defense attorney present volunteered to represent the Confortis, the court
insisted that it was Rosenthal or no one.4 John and Loretta then accepted the
reassignment of the attorney; Leonard chose to continue pro se. After he had
conducted what could only be described as a disastrous cross-examination of
one of the female witnesses, the court advised Leonard of some of the
difficulties of pro se defense and reminded him of his continuing offer to
reassign Rosenthal. Leonard refused the attorney's services and did a creditable
job of representing himself throughout the remainder of the trial, conferring
with Rosenthal and other attorneys when necessary.

27

Leonard really makes two claims-that he did not effectively waive the
assistance of counsel and that the court erred in refusing to assign new counsel
or to allow Leonard time to locate an attorney on his own. He claims that he
made no "clear cut election" to waive his constitutional right to assistance of
counsel because his request that Rosenthal withdraw did not follow "a full and
calm discussion between the judge and the defendant" (United States v.
Spencer, 439 F.2d 1047, 1050 (2d Cir. 1971)) with emphasis on "the risk,
pitfalls and complexities inherent in [pro se representation] and the serious
consequences of conviction," United States v. Duty, 447 F.2d 449, 451 (2d Cir.
1971). Although it is true that the trial court did not, at the moment of Leonard's
request, discuss as fully as would have been desirable the consequences of his
acts, we are convinced that Leonard intelligently and knowingly waived his
right to counsel "even without such a caveat." United States v. Duty, supra, 447
F.2d at 451.

28

The decision on whether a defendant has effectively waived his Sixth

Amendment right to counsel depends "in each case, upon the particular facts
and circumstances surrounding that case, including the backgound, experience,
and conduct of the accused." Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct.
1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938). The factors that this court has considered in
making that determination are "whether the defendant understood that he had a
choice between proceeding pro se and with assigned counsel, whether the
defendant understood the advantages of having one trained in the law to
represent him, and whether the defendant had the capacity to make an
intelligent choice." United States v. Spencer, supra, 439 F.2d at 1050. The fact
that the defendant's pro se representation turned out to be inadequate and
ineffective is irrelevant to the issue of whether the waiver of his right to counsel
was knowingly or intelligently made, but it is important that the court consider
whether the defendant affirmatively made a choice or whether he proceeded
alone only because he felt "he had no choice" and thus did not effectively waive
his right. See United States ex rel. Higgins v. Fay, 364 F.2d 219 (2d Cir. 1966);
United States v. Curtiss, 330 F.2d 278 (2d Cir. 1964). The trial court must make
a "record sufficient to establish to our satisfaction that the defendant 'knows
what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.' United States v.
Plattner, 330 F.2d 271, 276 (2d Cir. 1964)." United States ex rel. Higgins v.
Fay, supra, 364 F.2d at 222.

29

The record here makes clear that under this test for intelligent waiver Leonard
did choose to forego Rosenthal's assistance. When he stated that he no longer
desired the services of the attorney, the court conveyed to him the danger and
folly of proceeding alone. And during the second day of self-representation, the
court warned him more explicitly of the perils of cross-examination by one not

seasoned by trial work. The court also had ample time to observe Leonard and
to assess his capacity to choose pro se defense, and we concur in his conclusion
that Leonard was intelligent and well understood the consequences of his acts.
Though he expressed his own sense of inability to defend himself effectively,
he willingly proceeded alone, preferring his own limitations to those he felt
Rosenthal possessed.5
30

As a subsidiary or alternative to the waiver argument, Leonard urges that

Rosenthal deserted him rather than the reverse, by stating that he intended to
enter into the stipulation contrary to his client's wishes. Leonard's claim that
this was an improper act which justified the dismissal is unfounded. The
American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice concludes
that a defendant is entitled to make the ultimate decision only in regard to
whether to plead guilty, whether to waive a jury, and whether to testify; "all
other strategic and tactical decisions are the exclusive province of the lawyer
after consultation with his client." Standards Relating to the Prosecution
Function and the Defense Function, approved draft 1971, The Defense
Function Sec. 5.2. The decision on "whether to stipulate to certain facts" falls
into the latter category. Id. p. 240; see People v. Woods, 23 Ill.2d 471, 179
N.E.2d 11 (1961). See generally United States v. Main, 443 F.2d 900 (9th Cir.
1971), cert. denied 404 U.S. 958, 92 S.Ct. 328, 30 L.Ed.2d 276 (1972); United
States v. Gutterman, 147 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1945).

31

In any case, the trial judge refused to allow Rosenthal to withdraw because of
this difference over strategy and Rosenthal expressed his willingness to resume
representation of Leonard even should he persist in his refusal to stipulate. The
trial judge, present in the courtroom and aware of nuances which the record
cannot convey, was persuaded, we think reasonably, that Leonard was
"determined to take charge of his defense, with and without a lawyer"; he now
"has no just reason to complain of lack of counsel" (Glenn v. United States, 303
F.2d 536, 540-541 (5th Cir. 1962), cert. denied sub nom. Everitt v. United
States, 372 U.S. 920, 83 S.Ct. 734, 9 L.Ed.2d 725 (1963)) for this was "a
situation for which he was intentionally and knowingly responsible." Kates v.
Nelson, 435 F.2d 1085, 1088 (9th Cir. 1970).

32

The second branch of Leonard's argument, closely entwined with the first, is
that the court ought to have assigned new counsel once Leonard had dismissed
Rosenthal. Once trial has begun, however, a defendant does not have the
unbridled right to reject assigned counsel and demand another. United States v.
Burkeen, 355 F.2d 241 (6th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Matlock v. United
States, 384 U.S. 957, 86 S.Ct. 1582, 16 L.Ed.2d 553 (1966); United States v.
Paccione, 224 F.2d 801 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 896, 76 S.Ct. 155, 100

L.Ed. 788 (1955). A defendant with assigned counsel cannot decide for no
good cause on the eve or in the middle of trial that he will have another attorney
represent him. Cf. United States v. Abbamonte, 348 F.2d 700 (2d Cir. 1965),
cert. denied, 382 U.S. 982, 86 S.Ct. 557, 15 L.Ed.2d 472 (1966) (retained
counsel). While courts must be assiduous in their defense of an accused's right
to counsel, that right may not be "manipulated so as to obstruct the orderly
procedure in the courts or to interfere with the fair administration of justice."
United States v. Bentvena, 319 F.2d 916, 936 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.
Ormento v. United States, 375 U.S. 940, 84 S.Ct. 345, 11 L.Ed.2d 271 (1963);
see United States v. Terry, 449 F.2d 727 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v.
Llanes, 374 F.2d 712 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 388 U.S. 917, 87 S.Ct. 2132, 18
L.Ed.2d 1358 (1967).
33

In order to warrant a substitution of counsel during trial, the defendant must

show good cause, such as a conflict of interest, a complete breakdown in
communication or an irreconcilable conflict which leads to an apparently unjust
verdict. Brown v. Craven, 424 F.2d 1166 (9th Cir. 1970); United States v.
Grow, 394 F.2d 182, 209 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 840, 89 S.Ct. 118, 21
L.Ed.2d 111 (1968); United States v. Gutterman, 147 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1945).
If a court refuses to inquire into a seemingly substantial complaint about
counsel when he has no reason to suspect the bona fides of the defendant, or if
on discovering justifiable dissatisfaction a court refuses to replace the attorney,
the defendant may then properly claim denial of his Sixth Amendment right.
Brown v. Craven, supra. In the absence of a conflict which presents such a
Sixth Amendment problem, the trial court has discretion to decide whether to
grant a continuance during the course of trial for the substitution of counsel,
and that decision will be reversed only if the court has abused its discretion.
United States v. Main, supra; United States v. Grow, supra.

34

In this case, we conclude that Leonard had no justification for his request for
new counsel. Rosenthal's action regarding the stipulation was not improper, and
he showed himself willing to accommodate to his client's strongly felt wishes.
The attorney had been assigned before trial, and the two had discussed the case;
there was no inability to communicate. Nor was the verdict unjust. We
therefore find that the trial court, which may have been only too aware that a
decision to honor Leonard's request would not only delay a complex trial but
would produce a rash of dissatisfaction with lawyers on the part of the other
defendants, did not abuse its discretion in denying Leonard's request.

35

Leonard calls our attention to the recent case of United States v. Morrissey, 461
F.2d 666 (2d Cir. 1972) but that case is readily distinguishable and only
strengthens our conclusion. There, Morrissey had petitioned the court four

times before trial for a substitution of counsel. An adjournment to effect a

change of counsel would not have engendered as much delay as had already
occurred through no fault of the defendant. The defendant gave reasons for his
wish which, if true, would have been good cause for a change of attorney. In
this case, the first sign of dissatisfaction came during trial, revolved around an
issue of trial strategy which was easily resolved, and was probed by the court,
conscious of the inevitable delay a switch would entail. The court's conclusion
in Morrissey is peculiarly apt here: "In sum, the record as a whole indicates that
[Leonard's] reasons for a change of counsel were insubstantial. Thus, the trial
court's proposed alternative to [Leonard] of representing himself or continuing
[Rosenthal] as counsel was proper." United States v. Morrissey, supra, 461
F.2d at 670.
36

Pasqua, Roche, Picciano, Moskowitz, and John Conforti claim that as a result
of Leonard's antics the jury could only have viewed the trial as a "macabre
charade" and that his pro se defense made it impossible for them to obtain a fair
trial. They claim that the trial court erred in denying their repeated requests for
severance and mistrial. The nub of their complaint is that through inept
questioning on cross-examination and incessant flamboyance and posturing
Leonard revealed damaging facts and brought out relationships among the
female witnesses and the defendants, knowledge of which created jury
compassion for the witnesses and ill will toward the defendants.

37

Motions for severance and mistrial are directed to the sound discretion of the
trial court. Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 75 S.Ct. 158, 99 L.Ed. 101
(1954); United States v. Marshall, 458 F.2d 446 (2d Cir. 1972); United States v.
Kompinski, 373 F.2d 429 (2d Cir. 1967); United States v. Bentvena, supra.
Before a defendant is entitled to severance he must show that substantial
prejudice derives from the joint trial and not merely that he would have had a
better chance of acquittal were he tried separately. United States v. Borelli, 435
F.2d 500 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 946, 91 S.Ct. 963, 28 L.Ed.2d
229 (1971); United States v. DeSapio, 435 F.2d 272 (2d Cir. 1970), cert.
denied, 402 U.S. 999, 91 S.Ct. 2170, 29 L.Ed.2d 166 (1971); Note, Joint and
Single Trials under Rules 8 and 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,
74 Yale L.J. 553, 562-66 (1965).

38

Tested against this standard, it is clear that the decision of the court below was
correct. The inquiries on cross-examination, none of which was objected to in
an attempt to halt Leonard's illadvised course, were not as likely to cause spillover prejudice as the disruptive outbursts in United States v. Bentvena, supra;
United States v. Marshall, supra; and United States v. Aviles, 274 F.2d 179 (2d
Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Genovese v. United States, 362 U.S. 974, 80 S.Ct.

1059, 4 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1960); the fit thrown by the insane co-defendant in
Brown v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 134, 375 F.2d 310 (1966), cert.
denied, 388 U.S. 915, 87 S.Ct. 2133, 18 L.Ed.2d 1359 (1967); or the presence
of the manacled co-defendant in McDonald v. United States, 89 F.2d 128 (8th
Cir.), cert. denied, 301 U.S. 697, 57 S.Ct. 925, 81 L.Ed. 1352 (1937), none of
which was held to warrant severance or mistrial. Nor did any appellant here
request ameliorative instructions which might have been appropriate. The
difficulties of which these five defendants complain are not essentially different
from those which any defendant might suffer in a joint trial if the efforts of
counsel are not co-ordinated. See, e. g., United States v. DeSapio, supra, 435
F.2d at 280-281. The denial of the motions for severance and mistrial was not
an abuse of discretion.
39

Calabro's Sixth Amendment claim arose from an incident which occurred on

the last day of trial, while the jury was deliberating into the evening. His
attorney became ill in the courtroom and was taken to a hospital at
approximately 10:45 p.m. The court then discussed the singular situation with
Calabro, who expressed uncertainty about whether another attorney could
competently represent him at that point. The court stated that he thought it
would be fair for another to assume his defense temporarily but Calabro refused
to make any decision, claiming that he "couldn't say" what ought to be done; he
"didn't know really." Then, without requesting another defense attorney to
represent Calabro for the remainder of the evening, the court allowed the
proceedings to continue. During the absence of the attorney, the court received
a note from the jury and delivered a supplemental charge to them. Shortly
thereafter, at 11:20 p. m., the jury returned with its verdict, finding Calabro
guilty on the conspiracy count and the others guilty, as set out in n. 1. The court
polled the jury on the verdict. Before adjourning, the court advised Calabro to
retain other counsel before the date of sentencing.

40

Calabro claims that this period of time during which he was unrepresented was
a "critical stage" of the proceedings during which he had a right to counsel, and
that he was therefore denied his constitutional rights under the Sixth
Amendment. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461
(1938). The government suggests preliminarily that Calabro effectively waived
his right to counsel by evasively refusing to answer the court directly but in
making clear that he chose to proceed alone. We cannot find on the basis of the
inconclusive conversation sketched above that the court clearly explained to
Calabro his right to counsel and the possibility of his representing himself
temporarily. Calabro seems to have been purposely unwilling to commit
himself, but the court did not ask him pointblank which course of action he
wished to take. Given the presumption against waiver of this fundamental

constitutional right, we cannot conclude that Calabro knowingly and

voluntarily waived the assistance of counsel.

41

42

However, in the particular circumstances present here, we conclude that

Calabro was not exposed to any "reasonable possibility of prejudice in fact"
(McGill v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 179, 348 F.2d 791 (1965), that no
prejudice accrued to him as a result of the hour without counsel, and that the
error was a harmless one.6 First, the question put by the jury in its note was a
repetition of an earlier question, asking whether a defendant could be acquitted
on the conspiracy count and be convicted on any of the substantive charges.
Unlike most of the other defendants, Calabro was charged only with
conspiracy. Therefore, "the jury's question and the judge's answer had nothing
whatever to do with the case against [him] or with his defense." Walker v.
United States, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 221, 322 F.2d 434, 436 (1963), cert. denied,
375 U.S. 976, 84 S.Ct. 494, 11 L.Ed.2d 421 (1964). Despite this fact, his
attorney had been given an opportunity when the question was first asked to
object to the suggested response and to offer language which the court adopted
as part of its answer. He had then expressly found the answer unobjectionable.
The repetition of the answer to this question could not have prejudiced
Calabro.7
It is equally clear that there was no possibility of prejudice to Calabro because
of his attorney's absence when the verdict was returned. Martin v. United
States, 182 F.2d 225 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 892, 71 S.Ct. 200, 95
L.Ed. 647 (1950); see McGill v. United States, supra; cf. Newagon v. Swope,
183 F.2d 340 (9th Cir. 1950), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 921, 71 S.Ct. 352, 95 L.Ed.
665 (1951). The court here polled the jury on its own motion and thus removed
the possibility of prejudice deriving from absence of polling which disturbed
the court in Thomas v. Hunter, 153 F.2d 834 (10th Cir. 1946). In United States
v. Smith, 411 F.2d 733 (6th Cir. 1969), the court found that even if the jury
were polled, prejudice might creep in because counsel was not present to
discern hesitancy of juror responses or other facts with "significant meaning."
In that case, however, the defendant was tried alone; here the numerous
attorneys whose clients' interests in the polling of the jury were identical to
Calabro's insured against such a possibility. In Smith, also, the court did not
discuss the situation with the defendant at all. See United States v. Clayton, 418
F.2d 1274 (6th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 931, 90 S.Ct. 2262, 26
L.Ed.2d 800 (1970). Though Calabro did not clearly waive counsel, the court
did outline the situation to him and make it clear that he could get another
attorney. This must have alerted him to be protective of his rights in the short
period during which he was unrepresented. We therefore find the case
distinguishable from Smith, but to the extent it is not, we decline to follow that

holding. We therefore find no reversible error based on Calabro's short period

without counsel. See United States v. Moher, 445 F.2d 584 (2d Cir. 1971);
Dallago v. United States, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 276, 427 F.2d 546 (1969); United
States v. Murphy, 413 F.2d 1129, 1140-1141 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S.
896, 90 S.Ct. 195, 24 L.Ed.2d 174 (1969); cf. Chin Kee v. Commonwealth, 407
F.2d 10 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 982, 89 S.Ct. 2143, 23 L.Ed.2d 770
(1969).
43

The defendants raise numerous other points, none of which has merit. The court
had reasonable non-hearsay grounds for finding the existence of a conspiracy
and admitting the hearsay evidence of co-conspirators against the others. The
evidence on passing of municipal bonds and other obligations was admissible
either to show "similar acts" and mode of operation or as part of the same
conspiracy charged in the indictment, although we note that it might have been
wise to exclude it given the other clear and overwhelming evidence of the
group's activities.

44

Finding, therefore, none of the claims made by appellants sufficient to warrant

reversal, we affirm their convictions and refuse to disturb the verdict below.

The first count charged all defendants with conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. Sec.
495 "by conspiring and agreeing to forge and to utter and publish as true U. S.
Series E Savings Bonds and United States Postal Money Orders, with intent to
defraud the United States, knowing the same to have been falsely made and
forged." There were twenty-six paired counts (numbers two through twentyseven) under Sec. 495, charging, respectively, the forging and uttering of
specific instruments; counts two and three specified four postal money orders
and the others named specific Series E Savings Bonds. A twenty-eighth count
charging John Conforti and his wife Loretta with a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec.
494 was dismissed by the court for lack of evidence
All of the appellants except Anthony Tortorello were convicted on the
conspiracy count. Leonard Conforti, named in all twenty-six substantive
counts; John Conforti, named in fourteen, Marc Moskowitz, in six and Anthony
Picciano, in two, were convicted on all counts charged. Tortorello was
acquitted on eighteen of the twenty-four substantive counts in which he was
named and John Roche was acquitted on two of the eight in which he was
charged. Joseph Calabro, charged on two substantive counts dismissed at the
start of the government's case, and Richard Pasqua were convicted of
conspiracy only.

Leonard Conforti, John Conforti, and John Roche were sentenced to ten years
imprisonment; Leonard was also fined $26,000. Joseph Calabro was sentenced
to a five-year prison term and was fined $10,000. Richard Pasqua and Marc
Moskowitz were each sentenced to five-year terms; Anthony Tortorello was
sentenced to a year and a day, and Anthony Picciano was placed on probation

John claims that prejudice flowed from the use of Sec. 495 on the substantive
counts based on the blank savings bonds when those counts could as well have
been brought under Sec. 471. The claim is meritless for sections 471 and 472
bear higher penalties than does Sec. 495. Roche and Leonard Conforti, who
could have been charged with forging postal money orders under 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 500 rather than with forging endorsements and uttering orders with forged
endorsements under Sec. 495, would then have been exposed to a five-year as
opposed to the ten-year maximum term they faced. However, Roche was only
sentenced to five years, and Leonard received ten-year terms to be served
concurrently with twenty-four other terms of equal length

The possibility that Leonard would agree to have Rosenthal reassigned had
been lessened the previous afternoon when the attorney had mentioned to the
court a fee dispute that he and Leonard were having in another case, thus
suggesting that Leonard's claims of indigency were less than genuine. This
apparent discrepancy in financial condition was explained to the court's
satisfaction, however, and by this time (the morning of the second day of selfrepresentation) Rosenthal had expressed his willingness to defend the Confortis
vigorously if they would accept his reassignment

The trial court, once Leonard had waived counsel, followed the practice
approved in United States v. Spencer, supra, of offering the defendant the
assistance of Rosenthal as a resource to answer questions and give advice
should the defendant request it. Rosenthal was always present in the courtroom
during trial, and Leonard apparently conferred with him and other defense
attorneys on occasion

"The general language in Johnson v. Zerbst and Rule 44 must be read in the
light of their fundamental purpose to provide the guiding hand of counsel at
every step where an accused who is without counsel may be prejudiced. . . .
The exaltation of abstraction above reality should not be condoned for the
purpose of denying constitutional rights and should not be indulged for the
purpose of creating constitutional rights." McGill, supra, 348 F.2d at 793

This case is readily distinguishable from United States v. Glick, 463 F.2d 491
(2d Cir. 1972) in which the court delivered supplementary instructions to the
jury outside the presence of the appellant (appearing pro se) and the attorney

for his co-defendants. The instruction was not only directly relevant to the
appellant's case, but was misleading and highly prejudicial. The court there
found, as has been held in numerous other recent cases under Fed.R.Crim.P. 43
(which requires the presence of the defendant at all stages of the proceeding)
that the defendant must show some prejudice or possibility of prejudice before
a conviction will be set aside on the ground that the defendant, and often his
attorney too, were absent during communication by the court with the jury. See
United States v. Arriagada, 451 F.2d 487 (4th Cir. 1971); United States v.
Howard, 433 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1970); United States v. Schor, 418 F.2d 26 (2d
Cir. 1969); Ware v. United States, 376 F.2d 717 (7th Cir. 1967)